about:navigating_principle_languages
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionLast revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
about:navigating_principle_languages [2013-09-12 17:51] – moved characterizing sets and weighting princiles to an own page christian | about:navigating_principle_languages [2013-09-15 22:39] – christian | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
===== Example ===== | ===== Example ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Context ==== | ||
The following example shows the usage of the OOD Principle Language. It details the assessment of a solution found in the CoCoME system((http:// | The following example shows the usage of the OOD Principle Language. It details the assessment of a solution found in the CoCoME system((http:// | ||
Line 41: | Line 43: | ||
* For the data layer there is a data component, a class '' | * For the data layer there is a data component, a class '' | ||
- | FIXME code for Data class | + | <code java> |
+ | public | ||
+ | { | ||
+ | public EnterpriseQueryIf getEnterpriseQueryIf() | ||
+ | { | ||
+ | return new EnterpriseQueryImpl(); | ||
+ | } | ||
+ | |||
+ | public PersistenceIf getPersistenceManager() | ||
+ | { | ||
+ | return new PersistenceImpl(); | ||
+ | } | ||
+ | |||
+ | public StoreQueryIf getStoreQueryIf() | ||
+ | { | ||
+ | return new StoreQueryImpl(); | ||
+ | } | ||
+ | } | ||
+ | </ | ||
* There are " | * There are " | ||
Line 51: | Line 71: | ||
private static DataIf dataaccess = null; | private static DataIf dataaccess = null; | ||
- | private DataIfFactory () {} | + | private DataIfFactory() {} |
- | public static DataIf getInstance () | + | public static DataIf getInstance() |
{ | { | ||
if (dataaccess == null) | if (dataaccess == null) | ||
{ | { | ||
- | dataaccess = new DataImpl (); | + | dataaccess = new DataImpl(); |
} | } | ||
return dataaccess; | return dataaccess; | ||
Line 66: | Line 86: | ||
Essentially '' | Essentially '' | ||
[[factory: | [[factory: | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Question ==== | ||
//Is this a good solution?// | //Is this a good solution?// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Finding a Characterizing Set ==== | ||
{{ : | {{ : | ||
Line 121: | Line 145: | ||
As a result we get {LC, KISS, RoE, TdA/IE, ML} as the characterizing set. | As a result we get {LC, KISS, RoE, TdA/IE, ML} as the characterizing set. | ||
- | Note that although in this example the principles are examined in a certain order. Nevertheless | + | Note that although in this example the principles are examined in a certain order, the method does not prescribe any. |
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Using the Characterizing Set ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | In order to answer the above question, we have to informally rate the solution based on the principles of the characterizing set: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * LC | ||
+ | * The solution creates a relatively strong coupling to the concrete implementations of the components. If a class uses the " | ||
+ | * KISS | ||
+ | * The solution is pretty easy to implement. Furthermore it is easy to get access to an arbitrary component. So according to KISS this is a good solution. | ||
+ | * RoE | ||
+ | * Getting access to a component is implicit. There is no need to explicitly pass a reference around. There is not even the necessity to explicitly define an attribute for the dependent class. RoE tells, that the solution is bad. | ||
+ | * TdA/IE | ||
+ | * Getting access to a the '' | ||
+ | * ML | ||
+ | * There are no particular pitfalls with this solution. So ML has nothing against it. | ||
+ | |||
+ | So LC, RoE and TdA/IE are against the solution, KISS thinks it's good and ML has nothing against it. As it is not the number of principles which is important, the designer still has to make a sound judgment based on these results. What is more important: Coupling, testability, | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Deciding between Alternatives ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | In the next step we would think about better alternatives and might come up with [[patterns: | ||
+ | |||
+ | We already constructed a characterizing set. So the only thing to do is to rate the ideas according to the principles: | ||
+ | |||
+ | The current " | ||
+ | |||
+ | * LC | ||
+ | * DI > SL > F | ||
+ | * Note that in the SL approach there is an additional coupling to the service locator | ||
+ | * KISS | ||
+ | * F > DI = SL | ||
+ | * All three solutions are rather simple but in DI there is complexity for passing around the references and in the SL approach there is complexity in maintaining the registry | ||
+ | * RoE | ||
+ | * The rating of RoE depends on the concrete variant of the pattern. In the DI approach the dependencies are explicitly visible on the interface, which is not the case in the two other approaches. In solution F the dependency is not visible from the interface at all. Same with SL if the service locator is globally accessible. Even if a reference to the service locator is explicitly passed around, it is still not visible which services provided by the locator are used. On the other hand getting a reference is explicit with F and SL. In the DI approach it is only explicit when it is done manually. Typical DI frameworks wire the instances implicitly. | ||
+ | * TdA/IE | ||
+ | * DI > FIXME | ||
+ | * ML | ||
+ | * F > DI > SL | ||
+ | * In the DI solution a possible fault would be to have different modules reference different instances of the same class where they should rather reference the same instance. In SL solution there is even a more problematic fault which could be introduced. Eventually somebody might get the idea to change the registered instances in the locator at runtime. This would then be the source for some hard to find defects: Some modules will cache the instance they got from the service locator in an attribute and some won't. In such a case the latter will receive the new instance while the former won't. |
about/navigating_principle_languages.txt · Last modified: 2013-09-16 17:27 by christian